Battlefield 3 exec sees gamers as inherently "bad"

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.

When we hear an angry parent, police officer, judge, or the news media decry the terrible nature of video games and the awful things they supposedly make gamers do, our industry collectively sighs. It's the natural response when nothing else seems to change their minds. But what's the contingency plan for when one of our own jumps ship?

Because in a recent article from Rock, Paper, Shotgun, DICE Executive Producer Patrick Bach discussed why gamers won't be able to shoot innocent civilians in Battlefield 3, and his reasons are very telling:

In a game where it’s more authentic, when you have a gun in your hand and a child in front of you, what would happen? Well, the player would probably shoot that child...[I]f you put the player in front of a choice where they can do good things or bad things, they will do bad things, go to the dark side -- because people think it’s cool to be naughty, and they won’t be caught. (Read more in link)

I thought this article was a good read. I don't really have an opinion regarding BF3, and if you should have the ability to kill civilians or not - but I find myself in games opting the 'good' anyway (No pun intended). The first game I played that had Morality choices - that I can remember - is Knights of the Old Republic, back on the Original Xbox. Even though it was a game, my conscience made me feel horrible for killing a civilian or dooming someone to a life of misery. Haha

Although second play through, I'd play through as an evil person just to see the different play through and story changes. Same for Mass Effect, and Fallout 3 (and other games with a morality system, like inFamous).

I used to do bad stuff in GTA games but that was a VERY long time ago. Now at 25, i always go for the good route.Teens and younger children will probably do bad stuff, not because it's "cool" but because they can experiment without actually hurting real people.

Well obviously if they put a child in a game where you can kill them, people are obviously going to kill them. The devs put them in the game. Is the player not going to take advantage of something put in the game?

It's like in RPGs where you can choose to be good or bad. I bet you the vast majority of players will choose the good side first because they think it's the right thing to do. Then during a second playthrough they do the bad playthrough because it's the other option in the game. What gamer in their right mind would only choose to play the game as the good player when you also have the choice to be bad?

Saying "old" to information under 3 - 5 days old makes you look like an ass.People who agree: 6

while playing GTA games, I usually forego the missions, & try to create as much destruction as possible, to bring my wanted level up just to see how long I can last.

over my half a dozen playthroughs of Bioshock 1 & 2, I could never bring myself to sacrifice the Little Sisters.

we spoke of this topic in sociology & psychology class, & I still think it's somewhat void. It's a video game. My virtual actions are not completely in line w/my actual moral standards & empathy for human kind. At the end of the day, video games are fiction.